Have you noticed that tennis matches are becoming more and more homogeneous?
If there's a technology that can obscure the faces and clothes of players on live footage, you'll find that the vast majority of tennis matches are similar, even the same.
Starting with a serve, followed by a baseline forehand and backhand attack, occasionally changing the line, or changing to a backhand cut, and ending with a bottom-line winning, compelling or unforced misstep.
This is the most common way to end a score. When this way of ending adds up, it is the way to end a game, a set, a game. Of course, in this process, there will also be other scoring methods, such as high-pressure or interception scores in front of the net, cross-point scores, putting small balls to pick high balls and so on.
If we do a detailed statistic, add up the bottom line forehand and backhand draw scores and record them as X; and then add up the scores such as high pressure, interception, crossing, and putting the ball as Y, so that we can calculate the proportion of X and Y in the total score Z.
However, no one has done such a statistical analysis, and my intuition alone is that the value of X/Z is about 60%, and the proportion of all the other scoring methods combined is estimated not to exceed 40%.
The above angle is based on the players and the style of play, we may wish to think about it from another angle, what are the main scoring methods that win the applause and cheers of the audience? Or what will the audience applaud and scream and go crazy for?
Unfortunately, we still cannot find statistics on this. Then I might as well guess intuitively that the scoring that scores that are not through the bottom line, but through other unconventional ways, are more likely to arouse the audience's interest.
This guess is based on the following two points of analysis.
First, the bottom line forehand and backhand scoring is the most normal operation, and the audience has seen it no surprise. In other words, this scoring method has become flat because it happens too often, and the audience has developed aesthetic fatigue. Unless the angle of the bottom line tear is large enough and there are enough rounds, it is difficult to get positive feedback from the audience.
Second, the players' skills and stability have been greatly improved, which invisibly raises the audience's appreciation threshold. For example, the bottom line of the forehand and backhand draw, as long as the ball is not deep enough, the line is not oblique enough, the vast majority of players will not have a return mistake. Such multi-shot stalemate, the players may be tired to spit white foam, but the audience is often indifferent, calm, but low-level mistakes are more likely to attract the interest of fans, but often attract not applause, but curses or schadenfreude.
In other words, fans spend money to buy tickets to enter the stadium to watch, for thrill-seeking, for watching wonderful balls, and for reaching intracranial orgasm. At the end of the day, most people watching the ball are just trying to have fun. If the players are contributing to a bland, boring, low-level game, how many fans can pay attention?
Of course, we can't ignore the role of superstars in driving the box office. The crux of the matter is, if the iteration of the stars is not successful, what does tennis rely on to support and maintain the box office? As many people have said, I wouldn't watch tennis without a Big Three game.
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) wrote in its Global Tennis Report 2021, "Grassroots tennis is the starting point for everything, and the ITF, together with its 210 member states, is committed to increasing the world's tennis population by another 30 million by 2030." ”
If tennis is becoming more and more homogeneous and boring, how can it attract new fans and new people to join the game? After all, without population support, everything will be unsustainable.
The homogenization of tennis is not only due to the convergence of playing styles, but also because of the increasingly strict, convergent and even rigid competition procedures and control measures. For example, a few days ago, the four Grand Slams jointly announced that after the decisive set of 6-6, they will implement the grab ten system.
To put it bluntly, compared to other sports, the pace of change in tennis is almost the slowest, the control of the playing environment is almost the strictest, and the suppression of the personality of the players is almost the most ruthless. It is an undeniable fact that several major tennis organizations are becoming more institutionalized and bureaucratic, and it is easier for them to get together than to try new reforms.
From the beginning to the exit of the player, all the procedures, steps and time limits are fixed, and the pick-up, warm-up, game, innings, break, post-match interview are clearly written in the rulebook and cannot be changed at all. As for the referee who controls the whole field, most of the time it is like a scoring machine without flesh and blood, no soul, and no temperature.
At any time, players must not swear with a finger, can not smash the racket, can not make disrespect for the opponent, the audience, the staff, otherwise, the punitive measures in the rulebook will be strictly implemented, and no one can escape.
This is not to encourage players to behave uncivilized, or even illegal. As Nadal said of the punishment caused by Zverev's smashing of the referee's chair, if the law is not strictly enforced, "the players will become more and more arrogant, and the tennis will become more and more dangerous." ”
But have you ever thought that so many red tape rules are tying tennis tighter and tighter and tighter while keeping the game safe and orderly?
Does bundling stifle the personality of the players, does it make tennis lose its fun, excitement and controversy? And that's precisely what makes a sport so enduringly attractive.
If we follow this line of thinking all the way, it is easy to come to a seemingly absurd conclusion - tennis needs the blessing of superstars, and it also needs villains to bring traffic and attention.
At this point, you'll probably guess what I'm trying to say. Yes, people like Kyrgios may also have a positive effect on the popularization of tennis.
From a practical point of view, the emergence of "aliens" such as Kyrgios in the tennis world is inevitable, which is similar to the inheritance of biological diversity and differentiated genes, even if there is no Kyrgios, there will be Zhang Yegaos and Wang Yegaos.
Taking stock of the past 40 years of tennis, there are many "bad boys" among the top players, such as McEnroe, Agassi, Rios, and Safin are controversial figures, who are very popular among fans and have brought considerable box office and attention to tennis.
However, in the past 10 years, the top players have become more and more cautious in their words and deeds, they are trembling on and off the pitch, spontaneously smoothing out the edges and corners, and becoming "Mr. Good" who lacks personality. As many have criticized, the vast majority of press conferences are boring, with players saying so much but not saying anything.
The day before yesterday in Indian Wells, Kyrgios said "unashamedly" after losing to Nadal: "I feel like I'm helping tennis, I'm bringing attention, and all those who think I'm bad about the sport are stupid!" ”
Calm down and think about it, is Kyrgios's words a bit "rough and not rough"?
(Source: Tennis House Author: Yun Cirrus Yunshu)